DOCSLIB.ORG

IN the SUPREME COURT of BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) Writ Petition No. 696 of 2010 in the Matt

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IN the SUPREME COURT of BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) Writ Petition No. 696 of 2010 in the Matt IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) Writ Petition No. 696 of 2010 In the matter of: An application under Article 102(2)(a)(ii) of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh And In the matter of: Siddique Ahmed. ... Petitioner -Versus- Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary Ministry of law, justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, P.S.-Ramna and District-Dhaka and others. ....Respondents Mr. Hasan M.S. Azim with Mr. Mirza Ali Mahmood, Advocate. ...For the petitioner Mr. Mahbubey Alam, Attorney General Mr.Akram Hossain Chowdhury Mr.Karunamoy Chakma Mr.Bhisma Dev Chakravarty Ms.Promila Biswas Ms.Shakila Rowshan Jahan Deputy Attorneys General Mr.Ekramul Haque Md.Diliruzzaman Ms. Kasifa Hossain Assistant Attorneys General And Mr.M.K.Rahman, Additional Attorney General with Mr.Mostafa Zaman Islam Deputy Attorney General Mr.S.M.Nazmul Huq Assistant Attorney General ... For respondent no.1. Mr. Murad Reza, Additional Attorney General with Mr. Md. Nazrul Islam Talukder Mr. Md. Motaher Hossain Sazu, Mr. M. Khurshid Alam sarker, Mr. Mahammad Selim =2= .... Deputy Attorneys General Mr. Delowar Hossain Samaddar, A.A.G Mr. A.B.M. Altaf Hossain, A.A.G Mr. Amit Talukder, A.A.G Mr. Md. Shahidul Islam Khan, A.A.G Ms. Purabi Saha, A.A.G Ms. Fazilatunessa Bappy, A.A.G ... For the respondents No.2 Mr. M. Amir-Ul Islam, Senior Advocate Mr. A.F.M. Mesbahuddin, Senior Advocate Mr. Abdul Matin Khasru, Senior Advocate Mr. Yusuf Hossain Humayun, Advocate ......As Amicus Curiae Heard on 08.07.10, 26.07.10, 27.07.10, 10.08.10, 16.08.10, 25.8.10 and Judgment on 26.08.2010. Present: Mr. Justice A.H.M. Shamsuddin Choudhury And Mr. Justice Sheikh Md. Zakir Hossain A.H. M. Shamsuddin Chowdhury J: By this Petition, which engendered the under mentioned Rule, the petitioner sought to have the conviction and sentence, a special martial law court passed on him on 20th March 2006, set aside. Although the relief the petitioner asked for, is simple, the grounds on which he erected his claim to the aspired relief, invoke an issue of immense Constitutional importance, questioning the very validity of all the martial law instruments, inclusive of the proclamation of martial law itself, General Hussain Mohammed Ershad, purportedly, issued on assumption of power on 24th March 1982 and all other instruments that emanated from the authoritarian ruler during his de-facto rule. =3= The petitioner has, to make out a case for the effacement of the conviction handed upon him, challenged the constitutionality of an Act of Parliament, named the Constitution (Seventh Amendment)Act 1986, by which the Constitution was purportedly amended to accommodate into it all the aforementioned instruments. It is the petitioner’s claim that the pretentious court was in fact a ‘coram non judice’ as it was an offspring of a martial law instrument, which can not be visualised through any spectacle of legality. By the rule, the petition succeeded to animate, the Respondents were asked to show cause as to why Section 3 of the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act 1986, purportedly seeking to ratify and confirm the Proclamation of Martial Law on March 24, 1982 and all other Proclamations, Proclamation Orders, Chief Martial Law Administrator’s Orders, Martial Law Regulations, Martial Law Orders, Martial Law Instructions etc., henceforth conjointly cited as ‘instruments’, made during the period between March 24, 1982 and the date of the commencement of the Constitution (Seven Amendment) Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986), should not be declared to be without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and, why a direction for re-trial of Kotowali P.S. Case No. 25 dated 24.12.1984, (corresponding G.R. No. 1676 of 1984), under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code, should not be issued, and why such other order or orders should not be passed as this court may deem appropriate. Pending hearing of the Rule, the petitioner was enlarged on bail in Martial Law Case No. 12 of 1986, which arose out of Kotowali P.S. Case No. 25 dated 24.12.1984 (corresponding G.R. =4= No.1676 of 1984), for a period of 6(six) months from the date of release. The Rule was issued by a Division Bench comprising Momtazuddin Ahmed and Naima Haider JJ. To lend support to what he craved, the petitioner figured detailed averments, which are summarised below ; Notwithstanding that, as a law abiding citizen, the petitioner has always maintained a straight and impeccable track record , he was, nevertheless, indicted of an offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The case stemmed from a First Information Report that was lodged with the Kotwali Police Station of Chittagong on 24th December 1984 and was registered as Kotwali PS Case Number 25, dated 24/12/1984. The allegations, figured in the Report, was to the effect that one Abu Taher, son of Md. Kala Miah, resident at a dwelling named Islam Colony at Khatunganj area of Chittagong, was pursuing his vocation as a vender for his livelihood. His aforenamed son also resided with him at the same address. On 11th November 1984, Kala Miah along with his son was busy in selling spices in the market. During the period of intermission, Kala sent his son off to their residence to fetch lunch items. His son was carrying an amount of Tk.1500. An hour afterward, one of the accused persons named Nur, cited in the FIR, approached Kala at the latter’s shop and intimated that he saw his son in an alarming state of health. Kala rushed to his residence while Nur left for a doctor. On arrival Kala found his son , Abu Taher, not alive, in a sitting posture with his lungi around his neck, tied with a bamboo. Kala’s =5= landlord intimated the Kotwali police of the incident over telephone, and the police responded by arriving at the venue of occurrence. It was alleged in the FIR that Siddique Ahmed, the petitioner before us, along with Nur were to blame for the for homicide of Abu Taher. It was indeed, Kala who lodged the Information. The case was initially registered as Kotwali PS UD Case number 17 of 1984. The autopsy report compiled by the doctors at the General hospital in Chittagong, revealed that the death was occasioned by hemorrhage in the brain surface, which resulted from attack by moderately heavy blunt weapon and the death was homicidal in nature. A Sub-Inspector at Kotwali PS subsequently lodged a fresh FIR on 24th December 1984, citing Section 302 of the Penal Code and the case at that stage received it’s latest number. Two different Sub-Inspectors of the Kotwali Police Station investigated into the incident on turn and then submitted a final report. A Deputy Commissioner of Chittagong Metropolitan Police, however, at that stage, set the Detective Branch into motion for further investigation and, a Sub-Inspector of the said branch transmitted a Police Report in affirmative term, indicting 3 persons inclusive of the petitioner, engaging Section 302 of the Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 11th April 1985 and was produced before a Magistrate on the same day. It appears from the Magistrate’s order sheet that the petitioner successfully applied for bail in the Court of the Session’s Judge, =6= Chittagong, and the petitioner won his liberty on 24th December 1985. On maturity for trial, the case was transferred to the Session’s judge, Chittagong, it was re numbered as ST Case no 10 of 1986, and the learned judge transferred it to an Additional Session’s Judge for disposal. The Additional Session’s Judge concerned, however, being asked to do so by the authorities, transmitted the case records to the Chairman, Special Martial Law Court no 3, Zone C, Chittagong. The Special Martial Law Court, which owed it’s existence to a martial law regulation, then assumed jurisdiction over the matter and numbered it as Martial Law Case no 12 of 1986. Records divulge that neither the petitioner nor the other accused persons made themselves available before the said martial law court when trial commenced therein. The said court proceeded with the trial in absence of the accused persons engaging Section 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, framed charges on 15th March 1986 against all the accused under Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code. In view of the absence of the accused persons, a state appointed counsel was commissioned to defend the latter. Some 8 out of 10 prosecution witnesses, the remaining 2 being tendered only, were examined by the prosecution and cross examined by the state engaged lawyer. At the conclusion of the trial, the martial law court concerned found all the accused persons guilty and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Tk.1000.00, or to suffer another period of rigorous imprisonment in default. =7= A Lieutenant Colonel, on a so called review, affirmed the conviction and then Lieutenant General Hussain Muhammed Ershad, as the Chief Martial Law Administrator, confirmed the judgment and order on 20th March 1986. The petitioner remained at large till 2nd August 2006, on which date he was rounded up and then produced before a Metropolitan Magistrate in Dhaka, whereupon the Magistrate sent the earlier to the prison and transmitted the records to the Court of Session’s Judge, Dhaka. The said Court in turn, issued a warrant of conviction against the petitioner. The petitioner has, thence, been languishing in jail for a period in excess of 3 years.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the Supreme Court of Bangladesh High Court Division (Special Original Jurisdiction)
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) Writ Petition No. 696 of 2010 In the matter of: An application under Article 102(2)(a)(ii) of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh And In the matter of: Siddique Ahmed. ... Petitioner -Versus- Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary Ministry of law, justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, P.S.-Ramna and District-Dhaka and others. ....Respondents Mr. Mirza Ali Mahmood, Advocate. ...For the petitioner Mr. Mahbubey Alam, Attorney General Mr.Akram Hossain Chowdhury Mr.Karunamoy Chakma Mr.Bhisma Dev Chakravarty Ms.Promila Biswas Ms.Shakila Rowshan Jahan Deputy Attorneys General Mr.Ekramul Haque Md.Diliruzzaman Ms. Kasifa Hossain Assistant Attorneys General And Mr.M.K.Rahman, Additional Attorney General with Mr.Mostafa Zaman Islam Deputy Attorney General Mr.S.M.Nazmul Huq Assistant Attorney General ... For respondent no.1. Mr. Murad Reza, Additional Attorney General with Mr. Md. Nazrul Islam Talukder Mr. Md. Motaher Hossain Sazu, =2= Mr. M. Khurshid Alam sarker, Mr. Mahammad Selim .... Deputy Attorneys General Mr. Delowar Hossain Samaddar, A.A.G Mr. A.B.M. Altaf Hossain, A.A.G Mr. Amit Talukder, A.A.G Mr. Md. Shahidul Islam Khan, A.A.G Ms. Purabi Saha, A.A.G Ms. Fazilatunessa Bappy, A.A.G ... For the respondents No.2 Mr. M. Amir-Ul Islam, Senior Advocate Mr. A.F.M. Mesbahuddin, Senior Advocate Mr. Abdul Matin Khasru, Senior Advocate Mr. Yusuf Hossain Humayun, Advocate ......As Amicus Curiae Heard on 08.07.10, 26.07.10, 27.07.10, 10.08.10, 16.08.10, 25.8.10 and Judgment on 26.08.2010 .
    [Show full text]
  • VANISHED WITHOUT a TRACE the Enforced Disappearance of Opposition and Dissent in Bangladesh
    VANISHED WITHOUT A TRACE The enforced disappearance of opposition and dissent in Bangladesh April 2019 / N° 735a Cover Photo : Relatives of victims made a human chain in front of the press club in Dhaka demanding an end to enforced disappearance, killing and abduction on International Human Rights Day, December 2014. (Photo by Zakir Hossain Chowdhury/NurPhoto) TABLE OF CONTENTS List of acronyms 6 Executive summary 7 Introduction 8 1. Context 10 1.1 – A conflictual political history 10 1.2 – The 2014 election 11 1.3 – Human rights in Bangladesh today 12 1.4 – Legal framework 15 1.4.1 The Constitution 15 1.4.2 The Penal Code 16 1.4.3 Other domestic laws 17 1.4.4 International legal obligations 17 1.5 – Actors 18 1.5.1 Bangladesh police 19 1.5.2 Intelligence agencies 21 2. Crime of enforced disappearance: Analysis of trends and patterns 22 2.1 – Introduction: periods and trends 22 2.2 – Modus operandi 24 2.2.1 Previous threats, surveillance, and judicial harassment 24 2.2.2 Arbitrary arrest and abduction by agents of the State 28 2.2.3 Disappeared without a trace 29 2.2.4 Conditions of arbitrary detention 30 2.2.5 Fate of the victims of enforced disappearance 32 2.3 – Categories of victims 34 2.3.1 Gender perspective 34 2.3.2 Political opposition activists 35 2.3.3 Critical and dissident voices 37 2.3.4 Persons targeted in the framework of the anti-terrorism policy 38 2.3.5 Other individuals targeted as a result of the culture of impunity 39 2.3.6 Persecution and threats against those who speak out 39 2.4 – Alleged perpetrators 40 2.4.1 Law enforcement agents and intelligence officers 40 2.4.2 Responsibility of the executive branch 42 3.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Bangladesh Appellate Division
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH APPELLATE DIVISION PRESENT: Mr. Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha, Chief Justice Mr. Justice Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah Mrs. Justice Nazmun Ara Sultana Mr. Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain Mr. Justice Muhammad Imman Ali Mr. Justice Hasan Foez Siddique Mr. Justice Mirza Hussain Haider CIVIL APPEAL NO.06 OF 2017. (From the judgment and order dated 05.05.2016 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.9989 of 2014.) Government of Bangladesh and others: Appellants. =Versus= Advocate Asaduzzaman Siddiqui and others: Respondents. For the Appellants: Mr. Mahbubey Alam, Attorney General, with Mr. Murad Reza, Additional Attorney General, Mr. Momtaz Uddin Fakir, Additional Attorney General, Mr. Biswajit Debnath, Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Motaher Hossain Sazu, Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Md. Ekramul Hoque, Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Kh. Diliruzzaman, Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Masud Hasan Chowdhury, Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Amit Talukdar, Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Sheikh Saifuzzaman, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Bashir Ahmed, Assistant Attorney General, Ms. Mahfuza Begum, Assistant Attorney General, instructed by Mr. Haridas Paul, Advocate-on-Record. For the Respondents: Mr. Manzill Murshid, Advocate, instructed by Mr. M. Ashrafuzzaman Khan, Advocate-on-Record. As Amici: Mr. T.H. Khan, Senior Advocate, Dr. Kamal Hossain, Senior Advocate, Mr. Abdul Wadud Bhuiyan, Senior Advocate, Mr. M. Amirul Islam, Senior Advocate, Mr.Rokanuddin Mahmud, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ajmalul Hossain, Senior Advocate, Mr. A. J. Mohammad Ali, Senior Advocate, Mr. A.F. Hassan Ariff, 2 Senior Advocate, Mr. M.I.Farooqui, Senior Advocate, Mr. Fida M. Kamal, Senior Advocate. Date of hearing: 8th, 9th , 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 28th, 29th, 30th May, 2017 and 1st June, 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • CORI Country Report Bangladesh, March 2012
    Confirms CORI country of origin research and information CORI Country Report Bangladesh, March 2012 CORI Country Report; Bangladesh, March 2012 Preface Country of Origin Information (COI) is required within Refugee Status Determination (RSD) to provide objective evidence on conditions in refugee producing countries to support decision making. Quality information about human rights, legal provisions, politics, culture, society, religion and healthcare in countries of origin is essential in establishing whether or not a person’s fear of persecution is well founded. CORI Country Reports are designed to aid decision making within RSD. They are not intended to be general reports on human rights conditions. They serve a specific purpose, collating legally relevant information on conditions in countries of origin, pertinent to the assessment of claims for asylum. Categories of COI included within this report are based on the most common issues arising from asylum applications made by Bangladeshi nationals. This report covers events up to 31 March 2012. COI is a specific discipline distinct from academic, journalistic or policy writing, with its own conventions and protocols of professional standards as outlined in international guidance such as The Common EU Guidelines on Processing Country of Origin Information, 2008 and UNHCR, Country of Origin Information: Towards Enhanced International Cooperation, 2004. CORI provides information impartially and objectively, the inclusion of source material in this report does not equate to CORI agreeing with its content or reflect CORI’s position on conditions in a country. It is acknowledged that all sources have a bias, it is for decision makers to place a weight on sources, assessing relevance to each individual application.
    [Show full text]
  • Caretaker Government and the Politics of Bangladesh Md
    Society & Change Vol. VIII, No. 2, April-June 2014 ISSN :1997-1052 (Print), 227-202X (Online) Caretaker Government and the Politics of Bangladesh Md. Enayet Ullah Patwary* Abstract The issue of caretaker government has become the focal issue after the passing of the 15th amendment to the constitution of Bangladesh. Earlier the Supreme Court had declared the Caretaker system as illegal and unconstitutional. At the same time the court also opined that the 10th and 11th general elections could be held under caretaker government. In the midst of a political impasse, the state of emergency was declared and a government backed by army assumed state power in January, 2007. It ruled the country for two years in an 'unconstitutional' way. Inspite of an uncertain circumstance, the 9th parliament elections was held on the 28th December, 2008 and the 14 party alliance (Mohajote) government led by the Awami League (AL) won the election. Though Awami League did not say anything about the abolition of the caretaker system in its election manifesto it took the issue seriously when the Supreme Court declared the 13th amendment of the constitution as illegal. Finally, the Mohajote government led by AL abolished the caretaker government system through the 15th constitutional amendment. The opposition parties led by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) termed the decision of the ruling party as a conspiracy to remain in power for a long period of time. The opposition, led by BNP, started a movement demanding to reintroduction of the caretaker system. At present, the government and the opposition are confronting each other on this issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Politicisation of the Appointment and Removal of Judges in a Declining Democracy : the Case of Bangladesh
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Academic Research Repository at the Institute of Developing Economies Politicisation of the appointment and removal of judges in a declining democracy : the case of Bangladesh 著者 Asano Noriyuki, Minato Kazuki 権利 Copyrights 日本貿易振興機構（ジェトロ）アジア 経済研究所 / Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization (IDE-JETRO) http://www.ide.go.jp journal or IDE Discussion Paper publication title volume 758 year 2019-04 URL http://hdl.handle.net/2344/00050854 INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPING ECONOMIES IDE Discussion Papers are preliminary materials circulated to stimulate discussions and critical comments IDE DISCUSSION PAPER No. 758 Politicisation of the Appointment and Removal of Judges in a Declining Democracy: The Case of Bangladesh Noriyuki ASANO* and Kazuki MINATO** April 2019 Abstract In Bangladesh, the judiciary has adjudicated important political issues, particularly cases of constitutional amendments. On the other hand, the judiciary has been utterly politicised against a backdrop of deep-seated antagonism and mistrust between the two major political parties. Although the related literature tends to focus on either the judicialisation of politics or the politicisation of the judici ary alone, this paper argues that politicisation and judicialisation have coexisted and the relative importance of these two factors can change depending on the type of issue dealt with by the judiciary. Accordingly, this paper takes up the latest constitutional amendment case as an example, in which the Supreme Court struck down a significant constitutional change in the procedure for the removal of judges. In so doing, we demonstrate that, while judicial appointments had been deeply politicised for decades, judges across the political spectrum were very keen to uphold judicial autonomy vis-à-vis the executive branch.
    [Show full text]
  • The Petitioner Being a Lawyer of This Court Filed This Writ Petition Under
    =1= IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION NO.4403 OF 2010 IN THE MATTER OF: An application under Article 102(2)(a)(i) of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. AND IN THE MATTER: Raghib Rauf Chowdhury, Barrister-at- Law and Advocate of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, son of Abdur Rauf Chowdhury of House no.44, Road no.3/4, Dhanmondi, Dhaka. ..……..Petitioner -Versus- Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and others …….. Respondents Mr. Hassan M.S. Azim, Advocate with Mr. Raghib Rauf Chowdhury, Advocate (In person), Mr. Mirza Al-Mahmood, Advocate ..........For the petitioner Mr. Mahbubey Alam, Attorney General (Appeared as requested by the Court) Dr. Kamal Hossain, Senior advocate, Mr. Rokunuddin Mahmud, Senior advocate, Mr. Shafique Ahmed, Senior advocate & Mr. A.F. Hasan Ariff, Senior advocate ..........Amicus curiae Present: Heard on 31.03.2016, 10.05.2016, 12.05.2016, Mr. Justice Obaidul Hassan 19.05.2016, 26.05.2016, 12,06.2016, 27.07.2016, 04.08.2016 & 28.08.2016 And Judgment on 13.04.2017 Justice Krishna Debnath Obaidul Hassan, J. The petitioner being a lawyer of this Court filed this writ petition under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in =2= public interest with a view to uphold the ‘Supremacy of the Constitution’ and ‘Rule of Law’ for ensuring independence of the judiciary from other organs of the State.
    [Show full text]
  • M Jashim Ali Chowdhury & Nirm
    CALQ (2017) Vol. 3.3 ADVOCATE ASADUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI V. BANGLADESH: DILEMMA WITH IMPEACHMENT - M Jashim Ali Chowdhury* & Nirmal Kumar Saha# ABSTRACT Like the major constitutional systems of the world, Bangladesh had a parliamentary removal process for the judges of the highest court. The system was however changed by the military rulers of late 1970s. Very recently, the parliament of Bangladesh attempted to revive the original system and the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of Bangladesh, was passed in 2014. The case at hand, Asaduzzaman Siddiqui v. Bangladesh is a challenge to this Amendment. This case comment analyzes the arguments and reasoning of the case and argues that the judges and counsels concerned have wasted a chance to analyze this Amendment from its proper perspective. Therefore, a very high profile constitutional litigation ended in adding virtually nothing to the constitutional jurisprudence of Bangladesh. INTRODUCTION The executive, legislature and judiciary constitute the principle organs of a modern body politic. Constitutions thrive to demarcate each place and limits through creative articulation of separation of power, and checks and balances. Keeping the democratic sovereignty of the people as a foundation, the three organs continue to struggle and co-operate with each other in managing the affairs of State. In the overall framework, the elected executive remains answerable to the legislature, and the legislature to the people. The judiciary, on the other hand seeks to ensure the Assistant Professor, Department of Law, University of Chittagong, Bangladesh, Email: [email protected], Phone: +8801945428611. # Associate Professor, Department of Law, University of Chittagong, Bangladesh, Email: [email protected], Phone: +8801718573543 7 Published in Articles section of www.manupatra.com CALQ (2017) Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Bangladesh High Court Division (Special Original Jurisdiction)
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION NO. 9989 OF 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: An application under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. -AND- IN THE MATTER OF: Advocate Asaduzzaman Siddiqui and others ....... Petitioners. -Versus- Bangladesh represented by the Cabinet Secretary, Cabinet Division, Bangladesh Secretariat, Police Station Shahbag, Dhaka-1000 and others ......Respondents. Mr. Manzill Murshid with Mr. Moyeen A. Firozze and Mr. Sanjoy Mandal, Advocates .....For the petitioners. Mr. Mahbubey Alam, Attorney General with Mr. Md. Motaher Hossain (Sazu), DAG, Ms. Purabi Rani Sharma, AAG, Mr. A.B.M. Mahbub, AAG and Ms. Purabi Saha, AAG ….For the respondent no. 1. Mr. Murad Reza, Additional Attorney-General with Mr. Amit Talukder, DAG ….For the respondent no. 4. 1) Dr. Kamal Hossain, Senior Advocate 2) Mr. M. Amir-ul Islam, Senior Advocate 2 3) Mr. Rokanuddin Mahmud, Senior Advocate and 4) Mr. Ajmalul Hossain QC, Senior Advocate …. Amici Curiae Heard on 28.05.2015, 18.06.2015, 02.07.2015, 30.07.2015, 06.08.2015, 19.08.2015, 20.08.2015, 02.09.2015, 03.09.2015, 09.09.2015, 11.11.2015, 01.12.2015, 02.02.2016, 03.02.2016, 04.02.2016, 23.02.2016, 03.03.2016 and 10.03.2016. Judgment on 05.05.2016. Present: Mr. Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury, Mr. Justice Quazi Reza-Ul Hoque -And- Mr. Justice Md. Ashraful Kamal MOYEENUL ISLAM CHOWDHURY, J: On an application under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh filed by the petitioners, a Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 2014 (Act No.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Text of 5Th Amendment Verdict
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH Appellate Division Present Mr. Justice Md. Tafazzul Islam Chief Justice Mr. Justice Mohammad Fazlul Karim Mr. Justice Md. Abdul Matin Mr. Justice Bijan Kumar Das Mr. Justice Md. Muzammel Hossain Mr. Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha CIVIL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL NOS. 1044 & 1045 OF 2009 (From the judgment and order dated 29TH August passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 6016 of 2000) Khondker Delwar Hossain, Secretary, ... Petitioner B.N.P. Party (in C.P. No. 1044/09) Munshi Ahsan Kabir and others ....Petitioners (in C.P. No. 1045/09) = Versus = Bangladesh Italian Marble Works ... Respondents Ltd., Dhaka and others (in both the cases) For the Petitioner :Mr. T. H. Khan, Senior Advocate, instructed (in C.P. No. 1044/09) by Mr. Md. Taufique Hossain, Advocate- on-Record For the Petitioners :Mr. Moudud Ahmed, Senior Advocate,(Mr. (in C.P. No. 1045/09) Imran A Siddiq with him) instructed by Mr. Syed Mahbubar Rahman, Advocate-on-Record For the Respondent No.1 :Mr. Azmalul Hossain, Senior Advocate (Mr. (in both the cases) ABM Siddiqur Rahman Khan, Advocate appearing with the leave of the Court with him), instructed by Mvi. Md. Wahidullah, Advocate-on-Record :Mr. Towfique Nawaz, Senior For the Respondent No.2 Advocate(Mohshen Rashid, Advocate with (in both the cases) him) instructed by Mvi. Md. Wahidullah, Advocate-on-Record For the Respondent Nos.3 :Mr. Mahbubey Alam, Attorney General, and 4 (Mr. A.K.M. Zahirul Hoque, Additional (in both the cases) Attorney General, Mr. Mostafa Zaman Islam, Deputy Attorney General, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Bangladesh Appellate Division Present
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH APPELLATE DIVISION PRESENT: Mr. Justice Md. Muzammel Hossain, Chief Justice Mr. Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha Mr. Justice Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah Mr. Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain Mr. Justice A.H.M. Shamsuddin Choudhury CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.24-25 OF 2013. (From the judgment and order dated 5.2.2013 passed by the International Crimes Tribunal No.2 (ICT-2), Dhaka in ICT-BD Case No.02 of 2012.) Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Chief Prosecutor, International Crimes Tribunal, Appellant. Dhaka, Bangladesh: (In Crl. A. No.24 of 2013) Abdul Quader Molla: Appellant. (In Crl. A. No.25 of 2013) =Versus= Abdul Quader Molla: Respondent. (In Crl.A.No.24 of 2013) Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Chief Prosecutor, International Crimes Tribunal, Respondent. Dhaka, Bangladesh: (In Crl.A.No.25 of 2013) For the Appellant: Mr. Mahbubey Alam, Attorney General (with (In Crl. A. No.24 of 2013) Mr. M.K. Rahman, Additional Attorney General, Mr. Murad Reza, Additional Attorney General, Mr. Momtazuddin Fakir, Additional Attorney General, Mr. Biswajit Debnath, D.A.G., Mr. A.S.M. Nazmul Hoque, D.A.G., Mr. Ekramul Hoque, D.A.G., Mr. Amit Talukder, D.A.G. Mr. Masud Hasan Chowdhury, D.A.G., Mr. Bashir Ahmed, A.A.G., Mr. S.M. Quamrul Hasan, A.A.G., Mr. Titus Hillol Rema, A.A.G., Mr. Protikar Chakma, A.A.G., instructed by Mr. Syed Mahbubur Rahman, Advocate-on-Record. For the Appellant: Mr. Khon. Mahbub Hossain, Senior Advocate, (In Crl.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Bangladesh High Court Division (Special Original Jurisdiction)
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) Writ Petition No. 696 of 2010 In the matter of: An application under Article 102(2)(a)(ii) of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh And In the matter of: Siddique Ahmed. ... Petitioner -Versus- Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary Ministry of law, justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, P.S.-Ramna and District-Dhaka and others. ....Respondents Mr. Mirza Ali Mahmood, Advocate. ...For the petitioner Mr. Mahbubey Alam, Attorney General Mr.Akram Hossain Chowdhury Mr.Karunamoy Chakma Mr.Bhisma Dev Chakravarty Ms.Promila Biswas Ms.Shakila Rowshan Jahan Deputy Attorneys General Mr.Ekramul Haque Md.Diliruzzaman Ms. Kasifa Hossain Assistant Attorneys General And Mr.M.K.Rahman, Additional Attorney General with Mr.Mostafa Zaman Islam Deputy Attorney General Mr.S.M.Nazmul Huq Assistant Attorney General ... For respondent no.1. Mr. Murad Reza, Additional Attorney General with Mr. Md. Nazrul Islam Talukder Mr. Md. Motaher Hossain Sazu, Mr. M. Khurshid Alam sarker, Mr. Mahammad Selim =2= .... Deputy Attorneys General Mr. Delowar Hossain Samaddar, A.A.G Mr. A.B.M. Altaf Hossain, A.A.G Mr. Amit Talukder, A.A.G Mr. Md. Shahidul Islam Khan, A.A.G Ms. Purabi Saha, A.A.G Ms. Fazilatunessa Bappy, A.A.G ... For the respondents No.2 Mr. M. Amir-Ul Islam, Senior Advocate Mr. A.F.M. Mesbahuddin, Senior Advocate Mr. Abdul Matin Khasru, Senior Advocate Mr. Yusuf Hossain Humayun, Advocate ......As Amicus Curiae Heard on 08.07.10, 26.07.10, 27.07.10, 10.08.10, 16.08.10, 25.8.10 and Judgment on 26.08.2010.
    [Show full text]